Blog No. 234. Democrats: Snatching Defeat From the Jaws of Victory?

With the third round of Democratic debates scheduled for Thursday, it is timely to look again at where the Democratic campaign seems to be headed. Regretfully, the signs are not particularly encouraging.

In a Monday column in the New York Times, David Leonhardt argued that Democrats should “stop helping Trump.” They are doing so, he claimed, by taking positions that a majority of the public simply will not support. He noted that, since 2018, the favorability rating of Democrats has declined to the point of now being identical to that of Republicans. As a cause, Leonhardt singled out Democratic proposals for decriminalizing illegal crossings at the border (supported by Cory Booker, Julián Castro, Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren) and eliminating private health insurance in favor of “Medicare.” (As previously explained in this space, “Medicare For All” is a deceptive misnomer since the proposed scheme bears little resemblence to Medicare as we know it.)

Leonhardt’s perceptions of Democrats’ misjudgment are exactly right as far as they go, but they do not go far enough. Leonhardt is a liberal and, almost certainly a progressive. (Does anyone know just where to draw the line between “liberal” and “progressive,” or how the latter term came into its current usage? Theodore Roosevelt formed the Progressive Party in 1912, after losing the Republican nomination for President, but that was a long time ago). In any case, having asserted two heretical positions, Leonhardt took pains to reject an argument he had heard from “some centrists and conservatives” that “Democrats are hurtling toward socialism and instead must return to the triangulation of the Bill Clinton years.” Leonhardt did not pause to identify the particular centrists and conservatives he had in mind, and although I have quoted several members of those species, I don’t recall any of them putting it quite that way. But whether you think of the Democrats’ current agenda as “socialism” (an exceedingly sloppy term these days), they might well have something to learn from Clinton’s approach in rescuing the Party from its more doctrinaire elements (and thereby serving two terms).

Leonhardt would understandably be inclined to dismiss the Wall Street Journal as undeniably conservative, but the analysis reported in Jerry Seib’s Journal column should not be ignored. In “Democrats Can’t Afford To Leave Moderates Behind,” Seib pointed out:

Moderate voters have long been one of the most reliable constituencies for Democrats. Exit polls show that Democratic presidential candidates have won a majority of voters who identify themselves as moderates—as opposed to liberals or conservatives—in every election since 1988. Put differently, Democrats have carried moderate voters in every election since Ronald Reagan left the scene.

But just prevailing among moderates isn’t enough. To win nationally, history shows, Democrats need to win them decisively. In every presidential election Democrats won in that time span, they carried moderates by more than a dozen percentage points. In the elections they lost—in 1988, 2000, 2004 and 2016—they failed to carry moderates by such a margin.

I don’t know whether Leonhardt would damn Steve Bullock, the Governor of Montana, with the label of centrist or conservative, but Bullock has addressed the point rather bluntly. As reported by Leonhardt’s liberal colleague, Nicholas Kristof, “I met  , one of the Democrats running for president, for the first time and was impressed by his intellect and political skills, but he said something sobering: ‘We’re well on our way to losing this election before it starts.’” Bullock, unfortunately, speaks as one of the Democrats in the “moderate lane” who has failed to qualify for Thursday’s debate, as have Mike Bennet and John Delaney. Apart from Joe Biden, whose imperfections are gaining increasing scrutiny, and possibly Pete Buttigieg, the only moderate Democrat in view on Thursday will be Amy Klobuchar, an attractive candidate with an impressive record but minimal support in polls thus far.

Amy Klobuchar at June 2019 Debate

Klobuchar was the subject of a Jennifer Rubin column which revealed that, in addition to her other qualities, Senator Klobuchar has a lively sense of humor:

If former vice president Joe Biden is grave in denouncing Trump’s character, Klobuchar is lively and funny. “Donald Trump’s idea of diplomacy is waking up before the sun comes up and sending out a tweet in his bathrobe, extolling the virtues of Kim Jong Un and then before the sun goes down, going after Denmark and Greenland,” she said. “As I said a few weeks ago, what’s the difference between Donald Trump and Greenland? Greenland is not for sale.” She threw in for good measure: “And as your president, Democrats, I will pledge that I will never have my vice president stay in a resort I own. Oh, that’s right. I don’t own a resort.”

It could be that humor would be the very best weapon against Trump’s pompous bluster. A distinguished Republican in Exile wrote me, “I just read Jennifer Rubin’s column in the Washington Post about Amy Klobuchar. I immediately went online and contributed to Klobuchar’s campaign. Financially supporting a Democrat for President is a first for me, and I do it with enthusiasm!”

Leonhardt expressed his own enthusiasms by briefly enumerating issues he urges Democrats to emphasize:

Over the past two decades, incomes for most Americans have barely grown. Median wealth has declined. Americans are frustrated, and a majority supports a populist agenda: higher taxes on corporations and the rich, expanded government health care and financial aid, a higher minimum wage, even a Green New Deal.

I am not at all sure that a majority supports the “populist agenda” that appeals to Leonhardt or that the nostrums he proposes would significantly increase incomes or wealth for most Americans. It is not clear what he means by “expanded government health care and financial aid” or how high taxes might have to be to pay for them (as well as other Democratic favorites such as student loan forgiveness, free college tuition, and infrastructure).

The Green New Deal has received some encouraging polling numbers, but I suspect that very few of the pollees had much of an idea of what it actually entails. As Alan S. Binder, a former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve, and a prominent Democrat observed:

I’ve been writing about the perils of climate change since Al Gore educated me during the Clinton administration. I’m also a huge admirer of the New Deal. But look inside H.Res. 109, the Green New Deal, and you’ll find a wish list that invites ridicule from the right. No, the bill wouldn’t ban cows or airplanes. But if progressives want to appeal to independents, Republicans who can’t stomach Donald Trump, or even centrist Democrats, the Green New Deal should be pared to items germane to climate change. I have a hard time understanding how “guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States”—all wonderful things—will reduce CO2 emissions.

Moreover, even the provisions of the Green New Deal that are germane to CO2 reduction would cost trillions of dollars, and restructure the economy in fundamental respects, all in pursuit of goals that, even if attained, would have a limited impact on global warming. As in the case of Medicare For All, it is a program that is unlikely to be adopted, irrespective of how the 2020 election is decided. That is not to say that climate change and the need for remedial action should be denied, as the Trump administration has relentlessly insisted. Rather, it suggests that in the first instance at least, Democrats’ focus should be on actions that are practical and already have at least some Republican support. One such action is a “revenue neutral” tax on carbons with the proceeds of the tax returned to the public. That step has been endorsed by the majority of economists as well as number of leading Republicans on and off Capitol Hill.

Instead of focusing almost exclusively on expansive and expensive domestic programs, Democrats should devote some of their energy to foreign affairs. This would seem to be a an opportune time to do so in the wake of Trump’s spectacularly incompetent handling of negotiations with the Taliban. His performance in that matter brought to mind a favorite expression of my father, “amateur night in Dixie.” (I had never heard it from anyone else, but Google documents that it is a recognized description of “something is particularly poorly organized or just incompetent.” In fact, Google also discloses that last year Bette Midler had used those very words to describe the Trump administration.) Apart from Afghanistan, there are urgent issues involving Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Israel and Palestine. We deserve to know in some detail what the approaches of the Democratic nominee might be.

Finally, there is the matter of voter security in the 2020 election — defending against meddling by Russia and perhaps others. It is an issue as to which Trump has remained stubbornly, conspicuously and deplorably indifferent. It is also an issue as to which he shares culpability with his Capitol Hill enabler, Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, whose refusal to permit a vote on bipartisan voter security bills passed by the House has earned him the tag “Moscow Mitch.” While McConnell has reacted with great resentment to that nickname, he has yet to come up with any convincing reason for his position.

One of the bills pending in the Senate, the Election Security Act, was introduced by Amy Klobuchar. The bill would require backup paper ballots, provide $1 billion in election security grants to states for cybersecurity improvements and audits, strengthen federal response to election security interference, and establish accountability measures for election technology vendors. If the subject is not raised by the moderators on Thursday, Klobuchar should find a way of injecting it into the discussion and emphasizing its importance. And all Democrats must seek to hold Trump and McConnell responsible for their willful failures to protect our democratic process.